Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has dismissed an application seeking to strike out a professional misconduct petition filed against a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and two other lawyers, ruling that the matter must proceed to full hearing despite the petitioner's indication of an intention to withdraw the case. The committee, at its sitting on Friday, 3 July 2026, turned down the request by D.O. Okolo, counsel to Ikechukwu Ezechukwu (SAN), who had urged the panel to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioner, Kingsley Aneubuna, had notified the committee of his desire to withdraw the matter and had failed to appear before the panel to prosecute it. In his ruling, the chairman of the LPDC panel, Kalu Umeh, held that the committee's rules do not permit the withdrawal of a petition once parties have joined issues, stating that the panel was bound to proceed by adopting the processes already filed by the petitioner.
The petition, marked BB/LPDC/760/2022, was filed against Ezechukwu, alongside Smart Ukpanah and Hope Onyekwere, over allegations of professional misconduct, criminal misrepresentation, forgery and perjury. The allegations stem from a disputed property transaction involving Plot 713, Cadastral Zone B14, Dutse District, Abuja, which is the subject of a suit before the Federal Capital Territory High Court. According to the petition, the dispute arose after Aneubuna agreed to purchase a terrace duplex on the property for N51 million in 2018, relying on assurances from Ezechukwu that the title was free from any encumbrance. The petitioner later discovered that the property was already the subject of pending litigation, with an injunction granted in the case as far back as 2018.
The petition further alleged that Ukpanah joined Aneubuna as a co-claimant in the court case without his knowledge or authorisation, and that Onyekwere testified on his behalf without his consent. The petitioner also accused Ezechukwu of presenting a forged copy of the sale agreement and knowingly misrepresenting the status of the property despite the existence of pending court proceedings. According to the petition, both the forged and genuine agreements were prepared by Ezechukwu, who allegedly knew that litigation over the property was already pending in 2018 when the property was sold to the petitioner.
At the LPDC sitting, Okolo, counsel to Ezechukwu, argued that the petitioner had forwarded a letter notifying the committee of his intention to withdraw the petition and was aware of the proceedings but failed to appear before the panel. He therefore urged the committee to dismiss the petition. However, the panel's chairman rejected the application, stating that once issues had been joined, the committee's rules did not permit the withdrawal of petitions. "Since issues have been joined, we are obligated by the rules of this committee to adopt the processes filed by the petitioner," Umeh ruled. The panel subsequently adjourned the matter until 29 July 2026 for a definite hearing.
The petition arose from a broader property dispute connected to Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1182/2018, filed in March 2018, involving Uche Okoli, Multi Shelters Limited, and Ngozika Nwaneri, who were claimants in the case. The petitioner had reportedly been offered a terrace duplex on the disputed land in 2018 by Okoli and Multi Shelters Ltd for N51 million. Before making payment, the petitioner and her lawyer sought clarification from Ezechukwu on the status of the property and were assured that it had a clean and unencumbered title. Relying on those assurances, the petitioner accepted the offer, made the required payments and executed an agreement for the transaction. The house was expected to be completed within about two years, during which the petitioner was to complete all payments.
The petitioner later observed a slow pace of work and sought an explanation but was allegedly assured that the property would still be delivered within the agreed timeline. In 2021, the petitioner discovered that the property was already the subject of litigation in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1182/2018, which had been filed in March 2018, and that Justice Hussein Yusuf had granted an injunction in the matter that same year. The petitioner also alleged that she was joined as a co-claimant in the suit without her knowledge or consent by Ukpanah, who allegedly filed court processes and represented her and other subscribers without authorisation. It was further alleged that Onyekwere testified in court on behalf of the petitioner and others without their knowledge or authorisation. The petitioner maintained that both the forged and genuine agreements were prepared by Ezechukwu, who allegedly knew that litigation over the property was already pending in 2018 when the property was sold.
As the case now proceeds to substantive hearing on 29 July 2026, the LPDC's refusal to strike out the petition ensures that the serious allegations of professional misconduct against a Senior Advocate and two other legal practitioners will be examined on their merits. The committee's ruling reinforces the principle that once disciplinary proceedings have commenced and issues have been joined, petitioners cannot unilaterally withdraw their complaints, safeguarding the integrity of the disciplinary process and the public interest in holding legal practitioners accountable for their professional conduct.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments